Utah same-sex marriage petition arrives at the Supreme Court


#1

From the Petition

Those who favor redefining marriage as the union of any two or more persons see the institution primarily from an adult-centered perspective. From that view, marriage’s primary purpose is to endorse and legitimize the love and commitment between persons. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2718 (Alito, J., dissenting) (describing competing visions). The adult-centric view holds that because the love of a same-sex couple is just as good as that of an opposite-sex couple (“love is love”), the government’s refusal to recognize that love as a marriage is discrimination.

Those who wish to retain the opposite-sex marriage model believe the government has no legitimate interest in formally recognizing mere loving relationships, whether opposite-sex or same-sex. Their marriage view is biologically based, primarily child-centered, and has a conjugal meaning, id., with a primary purpose of uniting every child to his or her biological mother and father whenever possible, and by a mother and father when not possible.

The difference in these views is not that one side promotes equality, justice, and tolerance, while the other endorses inequality, injustice, and intolerance. Rather, it is a difference in understanding about what the marriage institution is—or ought to be.

People can disagree. But the question for this Court is not which view is better; it is whether the Constitution compels states to adopt either definition.

Petition is here:
docs.google.com/file/d/0B9afsss8C6tWQld6U2lZMlBVMUE/view?sle=true


#2

I am praying that the court will accept certiorari on this case. They already spent like seven pages on DOMA stating that the federal government cannot impose a marriage definition on the states. Now that it is the other way around the federal government want to impose on state the definition of marriage. I hope the court sees this double standard and does some justice here.


#3

They will, it only takes 4 Justices.


#4

Doesn’t the court have nine? So shouldn’t it take five?

May this pass.

The excerpt Gilliam quoted, I think, is the lynchpin for understanding this whole discussion.


#5

[QUOTE=Buckeyeboy;12233905]They will, it only takes 4 Justices.

The supreme court only accepts less than 10% of the totality of certioraries filed per period. They have had periods in which they have taken a 1%. With those statistics no action has any security that it will be taken. Even worst there is a chance that the justices may just don’t want to touch the issue to avoid it. I think we all need to pray that god touches the justices and that they grant it because if they don’t…gay marriage will be imposed on everyone


#6

The supreme court only accepts less than 10% of the totality of certioraries filed per period. They have had periods in which they have taken a 1%. With those statistics no action has any security that it will be taken. Even worst there is a chance that the justices may just don’t want to touch the issue to avoid it. I think we all need to pray that god touches the justices and that they grant it because if they don’t…gay marriage will be imposed on everyone
[/quote]

Since this is a “crisis of their own making” I don’t see how the SCOTUS can avoid hearing it. Also the Virginia case which will be filed on Friday.


#7

It only takes 4 justices to agree to hear a case. It takes 5 to win once the case is heard.

Most people think the court will take a gay marriage case this session or soon, but they might not. There is currently no split among lower courts - every recent circuit court decision has been for gay marriage. Some on the court may be happy to leave it at that. Also, the 4 likely votes against gay marriage (Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts) may prefer to wait for a change in the courts make up, because it seems likely that the current court would be at least 5 to 4 in favor of gay marriage (maybe 6).


#8

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_four

When the Court first met in Philadelphia in 1790, it only had 6 Justices. A Tie meant the lower court decision stood.


#9

The next court appointee will likely be a liberal replacing a liberal (nominated by either Obama or H. Clinton.) So the makeup isn’t going to get any better for the conservatives.

I think the case will be heard. We won’t know until October though when the new term starts.


#10

I hope they take it up… it’s pretty clear where the court stands on the equal protection issue. I’m guessing that by 2016 at the latest, gay marriage will be legal throughout the country.


#11

Ummm… , if the SCOTUS rules that hidden in the 14th amendment is a constitutional right to same sex marriage, then by July 2015, I think, it will be the law of the land… or the marriage of 2 men and 5 women for that matter; or any other combination.

The question Utah wants answered is:

“Whether the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a state from defining or recognizing marriage only as the legal union between a man and a woman.”

docs.google.com/file/d/0B9afsss8C6tWQld6U2lZMlBVMUE/view?sle=true&pli=1


#12

If they do take it up, I would be surprised to see a favorable vote for traditional marriage. We’ve already seen how they lean on this issue. And I do agree that the overturning of gay marriage bans state by state is completely unconstitutional. But the “civil rights” argument will likely hold sway in the current political and social environment. I wouldn’t get my hopes up. That said, I do sincerely hope I am wrong and that they take the case and deliver a fair and constitutional decision. But you saw what happened after Hobby Lobby; can you imagine what would happen after such a ruling? Maybe they’ll just feel a little too bullied and politically corrected.


#13

I wouldn’t be so sure about that. During orals on the Prop 8 case, even the liberal judges didn’t seem too interested in forcing the issue on everyone, which they could have. Plus, if Ginsburg holds the same opinion in this situation as she does about Rowe v Wade, she won’t be up for giving the anti-gay marriage crowd an easy target.

My guess…they leave it to the states.


#14

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.